The Brookhaven leader., 1887-07-07
Chancey Court.

We give below a resume of the business
disposed by this tribunal during last
weeks sitting:
Rhoda Hayes ct al VS.. Enoch Hayes
| Bill dismissed.
James f Rutland VS.. John Coker-Com-
promised and dismissed at costs of com
plainant.
Workingmen's Banking Company VS..
F L Kelley, ct al-The sale of personal
property by the Commissioner, + NJ Martin
ratified and confirmed.
r Fl Thompson ct al, executors, VS.. es-
tate OF Laura Williams, deceased-Execu-
tors were excused from making an annual
account until December term 1887.
g Atkinson VS.. ii J Shurley, ct al--Pro
confesso taken. The case being set Tor
hearing CD the bill exhibits and pro con-
fesso, q decree was rendered in favor Of
complainant for the sum of S2l3.47 to be
paid on or before the first of August 1887 I,
and in default the equity OF redemption is
| forever barred as to the lands in the deed
OF trust, and + NJ Martin appointed COM
missioner in Chancery to make sale of
the lands named therein.
EG Peyton VS.. f Gilbert, ct al-The
defendant, Middleton, is allowed 90 days
to answer the bill of complaint.
| Hardy vs.. 4 Iioskins, ct al-This
cause was heard on motion of Nj Green,
| \ Administrator of estate OF Joshua Green, de-
ceased. The Hanover National Bank Of
the city of New York aud Green to set
aside the order OF the Chancellor made in
vacation permitting the amendment and
supplemental bill to be filed. This was
overruled by the court
L a Byrd VS.. T Byrd-Bill for divorce
Decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony.
Viola Clark VS.. Julia Moak, ct al-Mo-
tion for appointment OF a guardian at Item
of the infant defendant, Sallie Burton.
Motion was sustained and + M Martin,
Clerk of the Court, appointed such guar
dian. De-. ....s .. ... .-..
Charles Oberschmidt VS. Catherine Ober-
schmidt-Bill for divorce. Final decree
dissolving the bonds of matrimony existing
between the parties
Rachel D Case, ct al vs. Martin Anding,
ct al-Motion of John Chafie, ct al for the
bill of complaint sustained and leave given
defendants to answer in 80 days.
Nancy S Mcfarland VS.. John p Nc
Farland-Decree granting alimony to COM
plainant in the sum of seven dollars per
month.
Emmeline Kings vs. E M Matthews and
ID Z Wright--Upon motion of complainant
the bill in this cause is adjudged to be
wholly confessed by both of defendants.
Warren Smith, ct ii VS.. Riley Smith ct
al-This cause upon motion of defendant,
Seavey is dismissed upon failure to pay
costs. The dismissal is without prejudice
to their rights in future suits.
Sessions & Cassidy VS. c P Smith, ct al
Motion of Hartman for pro confesso against
complainant to his cross bill was sustained
Workingmen's Banking Company vs. F
l. Kelley, ct al-Motion of complainant
for a personal decree against F l. Kelley
and Mary J Kelley and partnership Of
Kelley 4 Company for balance due on
final decree, and the same being referred
to a master IN ehancery, reported that the
balance due after crediting the final de-
mortgage is s., $50. The motion was sus-
Susan Cox VS. George Rielman, ct al
Demurrer in this cause TO the bill was by
the court overruled and 80 days allowed to
answer.
Francis f Anding, guardian. vs. Minor
heirs of James A Smith-Tbesixth annual
account with the wards approved.
Sessions Il Cassidy VS. p Smith, ct al
This cause coming on for final hearing the
papers in the case being referred to M
Martin, a commissioner to compute the
amount due Sessions Il Cassidy and Fl
Hartman, he returned to the court the
following report: Amount due Sessions &
Cassidy $28S.S8; amount due F III Hart
man 1918. Thereupon the court deereed
the sale of The personal and real property
named in the deed of trust and F NJ Mar
tin made a commissioner to make such
sale and from the proceeds of such sale
Hartman's debt to be paid first and balance
to be paid to Sessions & Cassidy. !,
Berthold & Jennings vs. w Hoskins, ct
al-Final decree for compliments for
81 ,Sls.4s and providing for sale of proper
ty embraced in mortgage.
Court adjourned late Friday evening.
The business in the court was smaller
than ever before-this, is due to the fact
that at the last term the docket was
wholly cleared and the oeses now on
record are new ones. A good number Of
orders were taken, but as they do not
affect the result of the cases, it is usless to
in,.lu1a them in tho ahova list